The Utah Legislature will need to rapidly redraw the state’s congressional boundaries after a judge ruled Monday that the Republican-controlled body circumvented safeguards put in place by voters to ensure districts aren’t drawn to favor any party.Related video above — Get the Facts: Redistricting or Gerrymandering? The current map, drawn in 2021, divides Salt Lake County — the state’s population center and a Democratic stronghold — among the state’s four congressional districts, all of which have since elected Republicans by wide margins.District Court Judge Dianna Gibson made few judgments on the content of the map but declared it unlawful because lawmakers had weakened and ignored an independent commission established by voters to prevent partisan gerrymandering. The nature of the violation lies in “the Legislature’s refusal to respect the people’s exercise of their constitutional lawmaking power and to honor the people’s right to reform their government,” Gibson said in her ruling.New maps will need to be drawn quickly for the 2026 midterm elections. Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, the state’s top elections official, asked the courts for the case to be finalized by November to leave time for the process before candidates start filing in early January. But appeals promised by Republican lawmakers could help them run out the clock to possibly delay adopting new maps until 2028.The ruling creates uncertainty in a state that was thought to be a clean sweep for the GOP as the party is preparing to defend its slim majority in the U.S. House. Nationally, Democrats need to net three seats next year to take control of the chamber. The sitting president’s party tends to lose seats in the midterms, as was the case for President Donald Trump in 2018.Trump has urged several Republican-led states to add winnable seats for the GOP. In Texas, a plan awaiting Gov. Greg Abbott’s approval includes five new districts that would favor Republicans. Ohio Republicans already were scheduled to revise their maps to make them more partisan, and Indiana, Florida and Missouri may choose to make changes. Some Democrat-led states say they may enter the redistricting battle, but so far only California has taken action to offset GOP gains in Texas.
The Utah Legislature will need to rapidly redraw the state’s congressional boundaries after a judge ruled Monday that the Republican-controlled body circumvented safeguards put in place by voters to ensure districts aren’t drawn to favor any party.
Related video above — Get the Facts: Redistricting or Gerrymandering?
The current map, drawn in 2021, divides Salt Lake County — the state’s population center and a Democratic stronghold — among the state’s four congressional districts, all of which have since elected Republicans by wide margins.
District Court Judge Dianna Gibson made few judgments on the content of the map but declared it unlawful because lawmakers had weakened and ignored an independent commission established by voters to prevent partisan gerrymandering. The nature of the violation lies in “the Legislature’s refusal to respect the people’s exercise of their constitutional lawmaking power and to honor the people’s right to reform their government,” Gibson said in her ruling.
New maps will need to be drawn quickly for the 2026 midterm elections. Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, the state’s top elections official, asked the courts for the case to be finalized by November to leave time for the process before candidates start filing in early January. But appeals promised by Republican lawmakers could help them run out the clock to possibly delay adopting new maps until 2028.
The ruling creates uncertainty in a state that was thought to be a clean sweep for the GOP as the party is preparing to defend its slim majority in the U.S. House. Nationally, Democrats need to net three seats next year to take control of the chamber. The sitting president’s party tends to lose seats in the midterms, as was the case for President Donald Trump in 2018.
Trump has urged several Republican-led states to add winnable seats for the GOP. In Texas, a plan awaiting Gov. Greg Abbott’s approval includes five new districts that would favor Republicans. Ohio Republicans already were scheduled to revise their maps to make them more partisan, and Indiana, Florida and Missouri may choose to make changes. Some Democrat-led states say they may enter the redistricting battle, but so far only California has taken action to offset GOP gains in Texas.
WASHINGTON — This year’s most far-reaching immigration case is likely to decide if immigration agents in Los Angeles are free to stop, question and arrest Latinos they suspect are here illegally.
President Trump promised the “largest mass deportation operation” in American history, and he chose to begin aggressive street sweeps in Los Angeles in early June.
The Greater Los Angeles area is “ground zero for the effects of the border crisis,” his lawyers told the Supreme Court this month. “Nearly 2 million illegal aliens — out of an area population of 20 million — are there unlawfully, encouraged by sanctuary-city policies and local officials’ avowed aim to thwart federal enforcement efforts.”
The “vast majority of illegal aliens in the [Central] District [of California] come from Mexico or Central America and many only speak Spanish,” they added.
Their fast-track appeal urged the justices to confirm that immigration agents have “reasonable suspicion” to stop and question Latinos who work in businesses or occupations that draw many undocumented workers.
No one questions that U.S. immigration agents may arrest migrants with criminal records or a final order of removal. But Trump administration lawyers say agents also have the authority to stop and question — and sometimes handcuff and arrest — otherwise law-abiding Latinos who have lived and worked here for years.
They could do so based not on evidence that the particular person lacks legal status but on the assumption that they look and work like others who are here illegally.
“Reasonable suspicion is a low bar — well below probable cause,” administration lawyers said. “Apparent ethnicity can be a factor supporting reasonable suspicion,” they added, noting that this standard assumes “lawful stops of innocent people may occur.”
If the court rules for Trump, it “could be enormously consequential” in Los Angeles and nationwide, said UCLA law professor Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law & Policy. “The government would read this as giving immigration enforcement agents a license to interrogate and detain people without individualized suspicion. It would likely set a pattern that could be used in other parts of the country.”
In their response to the appeal, immigrant rights advocates said the court should not “bless a regime that could ensnare in an immigration dragnet the millions of people … who are U.S. citizens or otherwise legally entitled to be in this country and are Latino, speak Spanish” and work in construction, food services or agriculture and can be seen at bus stops, car washes or retail parking lots.
The case now before the high court began June 18 when Pedro Vasquez Perdomo and two other Pasadena residents were arrested at a bus stop where they were waiting to be picked up for a job. They said heavily armed men wearing masks grabbed them, handcuffed them and put them in a car and drove to a detention center.
If “felt like a kidnapping,” Vasquez Perdomo said.
The plaintiffs include people who were handcuffed, arrested and taken to holding facilities even though they were U.S. citizens.
They joined a lawsuit with unions and immigrants rights groups as well as others who said they were confronted with masked agents who shouted commands and, in some instances, pushed them to the ground.
However, the suit quickly focused not on the aggressive and sometimes violent manner of the detentions, but on the legality of the stops.
U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong said the detentions appeared to violate the 4th Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.
It is “illegal to conduct roving patrols which identify people based on race alone, aggressively question them, and then detain them without a warrant, without their consent, and without reasonable suspicion that they are without status,” she said on July 11.
The crucial phrase is “reasonable suspicion.”
For decades, the Supreme Court has said police officers and federal agents may stop and briefly question persons if they see something that gives them reason to suspect a violation of the law. This is why, for example, an officer may pull over a motorist whose car has swerved on the highway.
But it was not clear that U.S. immigration agents can claim they have reasonable suspicion to stop and question persons based on their appearance if they are sitting at a bus stop in Pasadena, working at a car wash or standing with others outside a Home Depot.
Frimpong did not forbid agents from stopping and questioning persons who may be here illegally, but she put limits on their authority.
She said agents may not stop persons based “solely” on four factors: their race or apparent ethnicity, the fact they speak Spanish, the type of work they do, or their location such as a day labor pickup site or a car wash.
On Aug. 1, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to lift the judge’s temporary restraining order. The four factors “describe only a broad profile that does not supply the reasonable suspicion to justify a detentive stop,” the judges said by a 3-0 vote.
The district judge’s order applies in the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles and Orange counties as well as Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.
The 9th Circuit said those seven counties have an estimated population of 19,233,598, of whom 47% or 9,096,334 identify as “Hispanic or Latino.”
Like Frimpong, the three appellate judges were Democratic appointees.
A week later, Trump administration lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court in Noem vs. Perdomo. They said the judge’s order was impeding the president’s effort to enforce the immigration laws.
They urged the court to set aside the judge’s order and to clear the way for agents to make stops if they suspect the person may be in the country illegally.
Agents do not need evidence of a legal violation, they said. Moreover, the demographics of Los Angeles alone supplies them with reasonable suspicion.
“All of this reflects common sense: the reasonable-suspicion threshold is low, and the number of people who are illegally present and subject to detention and removal under the immigration laws in the (the seven-county area of Southern California) is extraordinarily high,” wrote Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer. “The high prevalence of illegal aliens should enable agents to stop a relatively broad range of individuals.”
He said the government is not “extolling racial profiling,” but “apparent ethnicity can be relevant to reasonable suspicion, especially in immigration enforcement.”
In the past, the court has said police can make stops based on the “totality of the circumstances” or the full picture. That should help the administration because agents can point to the large number of undocumented workers at certain businesses.
But past decisions have also said officers need some reason to suspect a specific individual may be violating the law.
The Supreme Court could act at any time, but it may also be several weeks before an order is issued. The decision may come with little or no explanation.
In recent weeks, the court’s conservatives have regularly sided with Trump and against federal district judges who have stood in his way. The terse decisions have been often followed by an angry and lengthy dissent from the three liberals.
Immigration rights advocates said the court should not uphold “an extraordinarily expansive dragnet, placing millions of law-abiding people at imminent risk of detention by federal agents.”
They said the daily patrols “have cast a pall over the district, where millions meet the government’s broad demographic profile and therefore reasonably fear that they may be caught up in the government’s dragnet, and perhaps spirited away from their families on a long-term basis, any time they venture outside their own homes.”
The Trump administration cannot deny funding to Los Angeles and 30 other cities and counties because of “sanctuary” policies that limit their cooperation with federal immigration agencies, a judge ruled late Friday.
The judge issued a preliminary injunction that expands restrictions the court handed down in April that blocked funding cuts to 16 cities and counties, including San Francisco and Santa Clara, after federal officials classified them as “sanctuary jurisdictions.”
U.S. District Judge William Orrick of the federal court in San Francisco ruled then that Trump’s executive order cutting funding was probably unconstitutional and violated the separation of powers doctrine.
Friday’s order added more than a dozen more jurisdictions to the preliminary injunction, including Los Angeles, Alameda County, Berkeley, Baltimore, Boston and Chicago.
Mayor Karen Bass’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a statement, a spokesperson for the White House said the Trump administration expected to ultimately win in its effort on appeal.
“The government — at all levels — has the duty to protect American citizens from harm,” Abigail Jackson, a spokesperson for the White House, said in a statement. “Sanctuary cities interfere with federal immigration enforcement at the expense and safety and security of American citizens. We look forward to ultimate vindication on the issue.”
The preliminary injunction is the latest chapter in an ongoing effort by the Trump administration to force “sanctuary cities” to assist and commit local resources to federal immigration enforcement efforts.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice published a list of what it determined to be sanctuary jurisdictions, or local entities that have “policies, laws, or regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.”
“Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design,” Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi said in a statement accompanying the published list.
Several cities and counties across the country have adopted sanctuary city policies, but specifics as to what extent they’re willing — or unwilling — to do for federal immigration officials have varied.
The policies typically do not impede federal officials from conducting immigration enforcement activities, but largely keep local jurisdictions from committing resources to the efforts.
The policies also don’t prevent local agencies from enforcing judicial warrants, which are signed by a judge. Cooperation on “detainers” or holds on jailed suspects issued by federal agencies, along with enforcement of civil immigration matters, is typically limited by sanctuary policies.
Federal officials in the suit have so far referred to “sanctuary” jurisdictions as local governments that don’t honor immigration detainer requests, don’t assist with administrative warrants, don’t share immigration status information, or don’t allow local police to assist in immigration enforcement operations.
Orrick noted that the executive orders threatened to withhold all federal funding if the cities and counties in question did not adhere to the Trump administration’s requests.
In the order, the judge referred to the executive order as a “coercive threat” and said it was unconstitutional.
Orrick, who sits on the bench in the Northern District of California, was appointed by former President Obama.
The Trump administration has been ratcheting up efforts to force local jurisdictions to assist in immigration enforcement. The administration has filed lawsuits against cities and counties, vastly increased street operations and immigration detentions, and deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles as it increased immigration operations.
The U.S. Department of Justice in June sued Los Angeles, and local officials, alleging its sanctuary city law is “illegal.”
The suit alleged that the city was looking to “thwart the will of the American people regarding deportations” by enacting sanctuary city policies.
Caprio, a former judge for the Providence Municipal Court, died following a bout with pancreatic cancer, according to a statement posted to social media.
“Beloved for his compassion, humility, and unwavering belief in the goodness of people, Judge Caprio touched the lives of millions through his work in the courtroom and beyond,” the statement reads. “His warmth, humor, and kindness left an indelible mark on all who knew him.”
“It was the love and support he received from all of you that lifted his spirits and boosted his soul to find the strength to fight on and outlive his diagnosis by a year and a half,” David Caprio said in the video.
Caprio went viral on social media for hearing cases on traffic and parking violations and arraignments for criminal offenses. It was Caprio’s empathy and humor in how he handled the cases that would touch audiences on social media.
Caprio grew up on Federal Hill in Providence, Rhode Island, and was the second of three sons. Before becoming a judge, Caprio shined shoes, delivered newspapers and worked on a milk truck.
He graduated from Providence College in 1958 and began teaching American government at a local high school in Providence. While teaching, he also attended night school at the Suffolk University School of Law in Boston.
Caprio served as a Providence Municipal Court judge from 1985 to 2023.
“Caught in Providence,” an Emmy-nominated TV show which ran from 2018 to 2020, highlighted Caprio’s day-to-day life reviewing traffic cases and misdemeanors in Rhode Island. Itskyrocketed him to fame on social media.
In December 2023, Caprio announced he had pancreatic cancer, and he decided to go public with his diagnosis to motivate others, hoping his survival would be an inspiration.
The former judge told “CBS Mornings” in 2024 that his deep empathy for others stems from hardships he faced growing up in poverty in Providence without hot running water, just blocks from the courthouse now named after him.
“I’m just a small-town municipal court judge, just trying to do good. That’s how I am, who tries to take into consideration the circumstances surrounding the people before me. And remember what my dad told me, when someone appears before you, put yourself in their shoes, imagine it’s you before them. How do you want to be treated?” Caprio said.
“It’s not a pleasant experience to go to bed at night, say your prayers. And suddenly you have one extra thing you have to ask for. And that is, please help the treatment be successful for the pancreatic cancer. And I think we’re on the way,” Caprio told CBS News in an interview.
Caprio is survived by his wife of almost six decades, Joyce Caprio, and his five children, seven grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.
A decade ago, Jesus Adan Rico breathed a big sigh of relief. That was when the Chino High School student, a Dreamer, learned an immigration judge had effectively shelved his deportation proceedings. Maria Torres, who came to the U.S. at 2 years old, also had her deportation proceedings paused by an immigration judge because she recently married a U.S. citizen.
Yet just eight weeks ago, Adan Rico — now 29, married with a new child — discovered that the Trump administration had revived his deportation case, even though he has renewed his DACA status at least four times. Torres learned the government wants to bring back her case just as she was preparing for her green card interview.
“No matter what we do, no matter how far we go in school, in our jobs and with our families, it doesn’t matter. It is all hanging by a thread,” he said.
Adan Rico and Torres are among thousands of immigrants who have built lives around the assumption they are safe from being detained and deported. Now they face that threat at the hands of the Department of Homeland Security, which is giving new life to administratively closed cases in a bid to step up immigration enforcement.
Some lawyers have received dozens of motions to recalendar — the first step to reopen old cases. If lawyers don’t succeed in opposing those motions, the immigrants could wind up back in courthouses that in recent months have become a hub for arrests.
“It has been 10 years,” Adan Rico said. “And all of a sudden our lives are on hold again, at the mercy of these people that think I have no right to be here.”
DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin, flanked by Madison Sheahan, left, and Todd Lyons, speaks during a news conference at ICE headquarters in May.
(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)
When asked about the government’s push to restart old proceedings, Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin declined to address questions about the administration’s change in policy or respond to attorneys’ complaints about the process. She released a statement similar to others she has offered to the media on immigration inquiries.
“Biden chose to release millions of illegal aliens, including criminals, into the country and used prosecutorial discretion to indefinitely delay their cases and allow them to illegally remain in the United States,” she said. “Now, President Trump and Secretary Noem are following the law and resuming these illegal aliens’ removal proceedings and ensuring their cases are heard by a judge.”
Attorneys handling these proceedings say the government is overwhelming the courts and immigration lawyers by dredging up cases, many of which are a decade or more old. In several of these, clients or their original lawyers have died. In other cases, immigrants have received legal status and were surprised to learn the government was attempting to revive deportation proceedings against them.
Since the 1970s, immigration judges have administratively closed deportation proceedings in order to ease the massive backlog on their dockets and prioritize more urgent cases. The maneuver essentially deferred a case, but didn’t completely dismiss it, giving both the court and the immigrant wiggle room. The idea was that immigrants could pursue other forms of relief such as a hardship waiver or deferred status. The government could reopen the case if needed.
Across the country, immigration attorneys have received a flurry of requests by Homeland Security’s Office of Principal Legal Advisor to revive cases. The motions, attorneys say, appear similar in language, and lack analysis or reference to a change that prompted the decision. In their motions, Trump administration lawyers argue that the targeted immigrants have not been granted green cards and therefore do not have legal status to be here.
The motions urge immigration judges to use their discretion to revive cases and consider whether a person has been detained or the pending application’s “ultimate outcome or likelihood of success.”
What distinguishes immigration proceedings from cases in federal or state courts is that both the lawyers and the judges are part of the executive branch, not the judiciary branch. They answer to Secretary Kristi Noem and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, respectively.
Attorneys and clients are racing against the clock to submit opposition to these motions. Many have become in essence private investigators, tracking down clients they haven’t seen in years. Other attorneys, who have retired, are looking to other immigration attorneys to pick up their client’s case.
“The court is drowning in these motions because we’re trying to resist these,” said David L. Wilson, an immigration attorney at Wilson Law Group in Minneapolis. He first received a batch of 25 government motions at the end of May — and then they kept coming every few weeks. One case involved a client from El Salvador who had been granted Temporary Protected Status, and whose case was administratively closed in 2006.
Adan Rico, a new father who is studying to be an HVAC technician in the Inland Empire, was stunned that the government was seeking to revive deportation proceedings.
The attorney who originally represented him has since died. “If it wasn’t for his daughter calling, I would have never found out my case was reopened,” he said. “The Department of Homeland Security never sent me anything.”
Attorney Patricia M. Corrales speaks at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles office in April.
(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
His new attorney, Patricia Corrales, said Adan Rico’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status doesn’t come up for renewal until 2027 and it defers deportation proceedings. But Corrales, who has received about a dozen motions, said it appears the government isn’t even checking whether the individuals are alive, much less their immigration status.
One of her cases is that of construction worker Helario Romero Arciniega. Seven years ago, a judge administratively closed deportation proceedings for Romero Arciniega, after he was severely beaten with a metal sprinkler head and had qualified for a visa for crime victims.
This year, government officials filed a motion to bring back the deportation proceedings against the construction worker, even though he had died six months ago.
“They don’t do their homework,” Corrales said of the government lawyers. “They’re very negligent in the manner in which they’re handling these motions to re-calendar.”
Some attorneys have reported delays in their ability to file their opposition motions because the court is so overwhelmed.
When asked about the backlog, Kathryn Mattingly, a spokesperson for the federal immigration court known as the Executive Office for Immigration Review, confirmed that the court “must receive the underlying initial motion before it can accept a response to that motion.”
Some immigrants now in legal limbo were just steps away from finalizing their green card applications.
Maria Torres, an L.A. County resident and mother of two, said she was only 2 years old when she was brought to the U.S. by her family. She grew up undocumented, and when the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program became available, applied to gain work authorization.
But in 2019, at 21, she was arrested on suspicion of a misdemeanor DUI, which put her into deportation proceedings. She took the classes and paid her ticket. With deportation proceedings open against her, she was able to get her case closed in 2022 while she sought a visa through her husband, a U.S. citizen.
Her visa was approved, and with just one interview appointment left, Torres felt blindsided when she received a call from her attorney’s office, saying the government wanted to restart deportation proceedings against her.
“I just felt my heart sink and I started crying,” she said. Her attorney submitted a motion opposing the recalendaring of the case, and they are waiting to hear how a judge will rule. In the meantime, she said, she’s hopeful she’ll have her final interview for her approved visa before then.
“People aren’t getting due process,” said attorney Mariela Caravetta. “It’s very unfair to the client because these cases have been sleeping for 10 years.”
(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)
Mariela Caravetta, an immigration attorney in Van Nuys, said that, since early June, about 30 of her clients have been targeted with government motions to reopen their cases.
By law, she has to reply in 10 days. That means she has to track down the client, who may have moved out of state.
“It’s bad faith doing it like that,” said Caravetta, who accused the federal government of flooding the immigration courts in an effort to meet its deportation quotas.
“People aren’t getting due process,” she said. “It’s very unfair to the client because these cases have been sleeping for 10 years.”
Caravetta has convinced some judges to deny the government motions because the clients are seeking ways to legally stay in the country. In a handful of cases, she hasn’t been able to reach her clients.
The government isn’t making an effort to reach out to attorneys to discuss the cases, as is required, she added. “That would save a lot of time for everybody,” she said. Her clients may have U-visas, which give relief to migrants who have been victims of crime and who help investigators or prosecutors. But the government’s motions say, “These people have not done anything to legalize their status, we need a final resolution.”
Matt O’Brien, a former federal immigration judge and deputy executive director of FAIR, which advocates for stricter immigration laws, said the Trump administration is “enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act the way that Congress wrote it.”
He questioned why attorneys are complaining about cases being recalendared, saying “it’s akin to a motion of reopening a case in any other court.”
Yet for many immigrants whose cases are being revived, the risks are high. Judges have discretion to deny motions to reopen cases, and have done so in some situations, attorneys say. But judges have also approved the government’s request if there is no opposition from the immigrant or their attorney.
At that point, cases are put on the calendar. If it gets scheduled, and the immigrants do not show up to court, they could eventually be ruled “in absentia,” which would make them vulnerable to immediate deportation and bar them from entering the country legally for years.
It all fits with the Trump administration’s goal of increasing deportation numbers, say many immigration lawyers and former officials.
“They are getting the largest pool possible of people that they can remove, and removing them from the country,” said Jason Hauser, the former chief of staff of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “And what stands in the way from that is a working due process of an immigration system.”
In April, Sirce E. Owen, acting director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, issued a memo criticizing the use of administrative closure, referring to it as “a de facto amnesty program with benefits” because it offers work authorization and deportation protections. Owen, a former immigration judge, rescinded previous Biden administration guidance that offered a more proactive approach to administrative closures.
Owen stated that, as of April, about 379,000 cases were still administratively closed in immigration court and cited them as a contributing factor to the court system’s backlog of 4 million cases.
In immigration courts in Los Angeles and San Diego, attorneys are already seeing these cases come before immigration judges. Many clients have expressed shock and despair at being dragged back into court.
Sherman Oaks attorney Edgardo Quintanilla has seen about 40 cases recently, including some dating back to the 2010s. Clients, he said, are alarmed not only by the government’s legal maneuvers but by the prospect of entering a federal building these days.
“There is always the fear that they may be arrested when they go to the court,” he said. “With everything going on, it is a reasonable fear.”
This article is part of The Times’ equity reporting initiative,funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to addressCalifornia’s economic divide.
The UCLA baseball team was cleared to resume using its baseball stadium at noon Tuesday after a judge temporarily lifted an order barring the team from the stadium on the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ West Los Angeles campus.
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter entered an order Monday restoring UCLA’s access to Jackie Robinson Stadium through July 4, allowing the team to complete its coming season. After that, the stadium will face an uncertain fate.
After a four-week trial this summer, Carter ruled the lease to UCLA of 10 acres on which the stadium sits was illegal because it did not predominantly focus on service to veterans. He ordered the stadium cordoned off in late September.
A class-action lawsuit alleged that the VA had failed in its duty to provide adequate housing for disabled veterans and that its leases of portions of the 388-acre campus for other purposes violated the 1888 deed of the land to the U.S. government for the “establishment, construction and permanent maintenance” of a home for disabled soldiers.
In an attempt to regain use of the stadium, UCLA attorney Raymond Cardozo said the university was willing to nearly double its rent to $600,000 and release two acres for housing. Carter initially spurned that offer while working with attorneys in the case to identify parcels where an initial 106 modular units of temporary housing could be placed.
After selecting the stadium’s parking lot and two other parcels during a hearing Friday, Carter abruptly changed direction, asking attorneys for the veterans who sued why they shouldn’t take the $600,000 and allow the baseball team to play at the stadium when the veterans were not using it. He gave them the weekend to confer with their clients.
Returning to court Monday, attorney Roman Silberfeld said they objected to the terms the judge described.
But Carter said he thought it would not make sense to pass up money that could be used for housing now.
He again urged the university and veterans to come up with a “holistic” agreement by July 4, when the grace period expires, and made it clear he still considers the stadium as a potential site for housing. He suggested that one option would be for UCLA to use more than 30 acres it owns in the Palos Verdes Peninsula for a new stadium.
UCLA praised the decision in a statement attributed to athletic director Martin Jarmond.
“We are excited to practice and play in Jackie Robinson Stadium this season,” it said. “Our young men have been working hard and keeping a positive attitude throughout this period of uncertainty, and we are pleased that they will be able to resume their regular training at the stadium.”
Rob Reynolds, a veteran who acts as a spokesman for the plaintiffs, said Carter’s change of heart “caught everybody by surprise.”
Reynolds said the veterans felt insulted that the amount offered was less than the UCLA baseball coach’s salary.
“It’s a travesty for them to see them get them come back for nothing,” he said.
A judge has ruled that an elite Mulholland Drive private school must reverse the expulsion of a 5th grade student over emails sent to a peer containing rap lyrics and the squirt gun emoji until the case can be heard at trial.
On Oct. 17, the parents of the expelled student filed a lawsuit against the Curtis School and Head of School Meera Ratnesar, alleging that the expulsion was “arbitrary and capricious” and that the school provided no evidence of a policy being violated or of the classmate feeling threatened.
This week Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch approved an order filed by the parent’s attorneys to temporarily halt the boy’s expulsion, according to court papers filed Thursday. The attorneys argued that expulsion is a harmful disruption to the student’s education and socialization, according to court documents.
The judge’s order took effect immediately and the student was free to return to school on Friday, according to court documents. However, the decision can be reconsidered if evidence emerges that the student poses a danger to students or faculty, and the school remains at liberty to impose alternative disciplinary measures, according to court documents.
The Curtis School is a prestigious elementary school with an annual tuition of $38,000 where many celebrities, such as Victoria and David Beckham, have sent their children.
School representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the order. In a statement shared last week, the school said it was disappointed by the litigation and committed to ensuring a safe and secure campus for all, but it declined to comment on individual students.
The student was expelled by Ratnesar on Oct. 1 over two email exchanges with a classmate.
On Sept. 5, the boy and a classmate sent emails back and forth containing lyrics from the YNW Melly song “Murder on My Mind,” which references guns and violence, according to court documents. Then on Sept. 25, the students engaged in another email exchange during their math class in which the boy sent messages on his school-issued laptop saying, “Shut up” and “I hate you” and included several green squirt gun emojis, and then said, “You dead yet,” to which the classmate responded, “No y.”
The parents allege that the boys are friends and hung out together immediately following the email exchanges, according to court documents. They also say that their son is a straight-A student who has faced no prior disciplinary action during his three years at the school, according to court documents.
No disciplinary action was taken against the classmate, who, according to email records, instigated the Sept. 5 exchange of rap lyrics.
“We are deeply disappointed by your decision to base expulsion on emails between two classmates who both showed a willingness to talk about guns based on a song’s lyrics,” the parents wrote in an Oct. 2 email to Ratnesar, urging her to reconsider the expulsion.
Ratnesar acknowledged in an Oct. 1 email that the classmate started the email exchange but said their son’s “contribution of lyric lines in addition to continuing to communicate threatening emojis and language 20 days after the lyric exchange, is a serious infraction that we cannot ignore.”
The parents’ attorneys allege that Ratnesar has a reputation for “unequal and arbitrary treatment of students” and point to, as evidence, several reviews left by former families at the school that discuss alleged favoritism and discriminatory treatment by the head of school.
Isaac Wright, spent 8 years in prison became a paralegal helping other inmates & practicing his own case. He got a police officer to admit the states attorney was bribing & lying. The state attorney commited suicide before the trial. He then had to fight against the other charges he had, and was released Wright is the only person in the US history to have been Sentenced to life in prison, Securing his own release and exoneration, and then being granted a license to practice Law by the very court that condemned him
A judge has denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed against a Hubbard Inn customer who in March posted a TikTok video claiming the venue’s bouncer dragged her out of the bathroom and shoved her, sending her “flying down the staircase.”
The customer, Julia Reel, is the subject of a defamation lawsuit filed by the Hubbard Inn’s lawyers. In the filing, the bar’s council claims that her social media post, which was shared more than 100,000 times, defamed the business, leading to more than $30,000 in canceled reservations, threats to their staff, and negative publicity with their Yelp page review bombed.
“I will never be going back there, and you shouldn’t either,” Reel said in her now-deleted video.
Reel’s video showed her sitting on her bed, calling the March 10 incident “the craziest experience she’s ever been in” and that she was “manhandled.” Cook County circuit court judge Patrick Sherlock denied her motion to dismiss the case on Tuesday, September 25, and ordered a response to the court by Tuesday, October 15.
After Reel posted her video in March, in an unusual move for a restaurant, Hubbard Inn responded with its own video spliced with Reel’s voiceover that included security footage allegedly showing the Tiktokker and a friend walking down a staircase with a bouncer following them. The Hubbard Inn video claimed Reel was “politely escorted off the premises, ensuring a safe exit.” A week later, the club filed the lawsuit against Reel.
Reel quickly turned to a law firm, Corboy & Demetrio, which put out its own TikTok video with a statement defending their client; it’s since been deleted and Reel has since switched attorneys.
Part of Reel’s new council, Rebecca Kaiser Fournier, an attorney at Henderson Parks, didn’t immediately return a request for comment. Reel is also represented by Forde & O’Meara, according to Cook County documents.
As the drama unfolded in March, online observers sat back and took their shots at Reel. The popular social media account Know Your Meme even posted about the conflict.
Reel filed a police report following the alleged altercation at Hubbard Inn claiming she was treated at Northwestern Memorial Hospital after a bouncer removed her from a bathroom while she was urinating. She claims the bouncer pushed her down the stairs causing her head to hit the ground. Reel, 22 at the time, told police she suffered bruises to her head and arm. No arrests were made.
A Hubbard Inn rep says police never contacted the bar for any follow-ups to Reel’s report.
In the motion to dismiss, filed on Wednesday, September 4, Reel’s attorneys argue her client’s video was “not a statement of fact but rather an internet review and her opinion of the business — not grounds for a defamation claim.” Reel’s attorneys also cite a classic piece of Chicago restaurant lore: a lawsuit filed by Peter Schivarelli, the founder of Demon Dogs, a hot dog stand that once stood under the CTA’s Fullerton Red and Brown line stop in Lincoln Park.
Schivarelli, a former streets and sanitation supervisor (who also managed the rock band Chicago), in 1999 sued CBS Chicago over a commercial that referenced a 1997 news report about Schivarelli’s involvement in a ghost payrolling scandal. The ad touted the channel’s investigative reporting unit and featured a clip from Pam Zekman’s piece with the reporter telling Schivarelli “you are cheating the city.” Schivarelli would argue that the clip lacked context and counted as defamation. The case was dismissed in 2001.
Hubbard Inn’s attorneys claim Reel ignored multiple requests in March to remove her post and that pushed them to sue.
A Florida fentanyl trafficker has been sentenced to federal prison.
This month, 39-year-old Patrick Ward, of Saint Lucie County, was sentenced to 75months in federal prison to be followed by three years of supervised releasefor trafficking fentanyl.
The sentence comes after Ward previously pleaded guilty to distributing fentanylon three separate occasions. According to the court record, on July 6, July 13, and August 18, of 2022, Ward sold a total of 47 grams of fentanyl in Port St. Lucie.
U.S. Attorney Markenzy Lapointe for the Southern District of Florida, Special Agent in Charge Deanne L. Reuter of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Miami Field Division, and Acting Chief Richard R. Del Toro, Jr.,of thePort St. Lucie Police Department (PSLPD) announced the sentence imposed by U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon.
DEA Miami Field Division andPSLPDinvestigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael D. Porter prosecuted it.
The sale of one of Los Angeles’ largest collections of homeless housing was approved by a judge Wednesday, marking a final step in averting a catastrophic loss of permanent shelter in Skid Row.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Stephen Goorvitch said the $10-million purchase price for 17 buildings to be paid by Beverly Hills developer Leo Pustilnikov was in the best interest of formerly homeless tenants and L.A. taxpayers who had been financing the portfolio’s maintenance and repairs for 16 months.
“This is a solution that is the product of collaboration, hard work and checks and balances,” Goorvitch said. “Only time will tell whether this will be a success story, but I am optimistic.”
Goorvitch on Wednesday approved the sale of an additional building, the New Genesis, to KE Ventures, an entity affiliated with a Washington D.C.-based multifamily developer, for $2.1 million. Both deals are scheduled to close next month. Along with the earlier transfers of 11 other properties to nonprofit landlords, all 29 buildings previously controlled by the Skid Row Housing Trust have found new owners.
The trust was once considered a national model for taking old single-room occupancy hotels and small apartment complexes in Skid Row and rehabilitating them into supportive housing for homeless residents. But in February 2023, the nonprofit announced it could no longer pay its bills after years of leadership problems and financial challenges. The decision left its 2,000-unit portfolio in disarray as tenants, many of whom were elderly, disabled or dealing with drug addiction, faced broken plumbing and heating, vermin infestations and other terrible conditions.
Mayor Karen Bass, City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto and other city leaders pushed for a court-ordered receivership last year to oversee the portfolio and search for new owners. Without urgent action, they said at the time, more than a thousand people could be forced to the streets and a critical source of homeless housing would be abandoned.
Identifying new owners has been challenging, for some of the same reasons that the trust failed. Many buildings are aging and need extensive repairs; federal housing subsidies haven’t covered growing monthly costs to operate them; the tenant population has grown more difficult as leasing practices prioritize those with mental health and addiction needs. Kevin Singer, the current receiver, said in recent court filings that some of the properties had such negative value that they couldn’t be given away.
But that plan faltered in the spring as city and state budgets dried up. A deal for some of the remaining buildings with the AIDS Healthcare Foundation broke down in April amid concerns about the charity’s track record in Skid Row, disputes over providing tenants with social services and the foundation’s assertion that conditions in the buildings were worse than they had believed.
Pustilnikov, who had long been interested in the properties, emerged as a buyer in the aftermath. The developer is better known for his plans to leverage a state law to build 3,500 new apartments in Beverly Hills, Redondo Beach and other wealthy Southern California communities. His attempt to amass a large downtown portfolio alongside two wealthy investors a decade ago fell apart amid litigation.
Pustilnikov has said that he’s stepping in to prevent worsening conditions in Skid Row and that he’s learned the complexities of financing and managing affordable housing in the neighborhood. He’s committed to maintaining social services for tenants, a key demand of Bass and the city.
“I would like to thank the city, county and state for their efforts in protecting this vulnerable population and I look forward to continuing to work with the mayor, City Council and County Board of Supervisors in turning around these challenging and neglected properties,” Pustilnikov said in a statement.
No formal opposition emerged to the sale, which Goorvich said was a significant factor in his approval following a 90-minute hearing in which he questioned city lawyers and the receiver. Goorvich said he was persuaded this decision would avoid an outcome that would threaten vulnerable tenants’ housing and that the city had sufficient regulatory authority to ensure the new owners would improve the properties.
“To put it in colloquial terms, something is better than nothing,” the judge said. “But I think this is a good something.”
Ann Sewill, general manager of the Los Angeles Housing Department, said after the hearing that she’s been impressed with Pustilnikov’s attention to the properties since he’s been engaged in the deal. She said he’s attempted to visit tenants units across the portfolio, asked detailed questions about building operations and has worked collaboratively with the city.
“We have a clear-eyed view of how to put these buildings back into financial and physical viability,” Sewill said.
Alec Baldwin’s trial in the shooting of a cinematographer begins Tuesday with the selection of jurors who will be tasked with deciding whether the actor is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.Getting chosen to serve in a trial of such a major star accused of such a major crime would be unusual even in Los Angeles or Baldwin’s hometown of New York. But it will be essentially an unheard-of experience for those who are picked as jurors in Santa Fe, New Mexico, though in recent years the state has increasingly become a hub of Hollywood production.Baldwin and his wife Hilaria arrived at the courthouse Tuesday with their youngest child, Ilaria Catalina Irena Baldwin. The couple have seven children, ranging in ages from 1 to 10.Baldwin, 66, could get up to 18 months in prison if jurors unanimously decide to convict him. The jurors are tasked with deciding whether Baldwin committed the felony when, during a rehearsal in October 2021, a revolver went off while he was pointing it at cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, killing her and wounding director Joel Souza. They were on the set of the Western film “Rust,” at Bonanza Creek Ranch some 18 miles from where the trial is being held.Baldwin has said the gun fired accidentally after he followed instructions to point it toward Hutchins, who was behind the camera. Unaware that the gun contained a live round, Baldwin said he pulled back the hammer — not the trigger — and it fired.The star of “30 Rock” and “The Hunt for Red October” made his first appearance in the courtroom on Monday, when Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer, in a significant victory for the defense, ruled at a pretrial hearing that Baldwin’s role as a co-producer on “Rust” isn’t relevant to the trial.On Tuesday, 79 people will be questioned and narrowed down. “It’s a process where both sides get to ask really specific questions of jurors,” John Day, a legal expert with sister station KOAT, said.He added, questions will come after some extensive research by both the prosecution and the defense.”Like, looked up their social media posts to see if they’ve said anything about this trial, or about guns in general, or Alec Baldwin in particular,” Day said.Candidates will also be grouped up in a 50-minute selection to ensure a faster process. Something that differed from Hannah Gutierrez-Reed’s trial. Twelve jurors and four alternates were selected in her case.”They were feeling pretty strongly that she had one job, and she didn’t do it,” Day said. “Her job was to make sure that there was no live ammunition on the set and that the guns didn’t have anything that was going to hurt someone.”That means finding the perfect juror will be key in a limited amount of time. “The ultimate juror is someone who can say, ‘I might know about the case, but I don’t have an opinion,’” Day said.However, certain ideas may be favored.For the prosecutions, the team will be looking closely at gun safety.”You’re going to want people on the jury who are familiar with gun safety issues, right?” Day said. “Who knows about gun safety, and who is going to be skeptical of somebody pointing a gun at someone without knowing what’s in it.”As for the defense, attorneys will closely look at movie set protocols.”You’re going to want people who would agree that a film is not like real life,” he said. “That if you’re an actor on a film set and someone hands you a gun and says it’s safe, there’s no reason to think otherwise.”But each side can only reject a certain number of potential jurors. “People that can kick off or they can say, ‘we’re not going to take that person for this reason,’” Day said. “It’s a process of narrowing down a large pool into a much smaller pool of jurors and alternates.”Jury selection will begin Tuesday morning at the Santa Fe County Courthouse. Opening statements are expected Wednesday.The Associated Press contributed to this report.
SANTA FE, N.M. —
Alec Baldwin’s trial in the shooting of a cinematographer begins Tuesday with the selection of jurors who will be tasked with deciding whether the actor is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
Getting chosen to serve in a trial of such a major star accused of such a major crime would be unusual even in Los Angeles or Baldwin’s hometown of New York. But it will be essentially an unheard-of experience for those who are picked as jurors in Santa Fe, New Mexico, though in recent years the state has increasingly become a hub of Hollywood production.
Baldwin and his wife Hilaria arrived at the courthouse Tuesday with their youngest child, Ilaria Catalina Irena Baldwin. The couple have seven children, ranging in ages from 1 to 10.
Baldwin, 66, could get up to 18 months in prison if jurors unanimously decide to convict him. The jurors are tasked with deciding whether Baldwin committed the felony when, during a rehearsal in October 2021, a revolver went off while he was pointing it at cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, killing her and wounding director Joel Souza. They were on the set of the Western film “Rust,” at Bonanza Creek Ranch some 18 miles from where the trial is being held.
Baldwin has said the gun fired accidentally after he followed instructions to point it toward Hutchins, who was behind the camera. Unaware that the gun contained a live round, Baldwin said he pulled back the hammer — not the trigger — and it fired.
The star of “30 Rock” and “The Hunt for Red October” made his first appearance in the courtroom on Monday, when Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer, in a significant victory for the defense, ruled at a pretrial hearing that Baldwin’s role as a co-producer on “Rust” isn’t relevant to the trial.
On Tuesday, 79 people will be questioned and narrowed down.
“It’s a process where both sides get to ask really specific questions of jurors,” John Day, a legal expert with sister station KOAT, said.
He added, questions will come after some extensive research by both the prosecution and the defense.
“Like, [they may have] looked up their social media posts to see if they’ve said anything about this trial, or about guns in general, or Alec Baldwin in particular,” Day said.
Candidates will also be grouped up in a 50-minute selection to ensure a faster process.
Something that differed from Hannah Gutierrez-Reed’s trial. Twelve jurors and four alternates were selected in her case.
“They were feeling pretty strongly that she had one job, and she didn’t do it,” Day said. “Her job was to make sure that there was no live ammunition on the set and that the guns didn’t have anything that was going to hurt someone.”
That means finding the perfect juror will be key in a limited amount of time.
“The ultimate juror is someone who can say, ‘I might know about the case, but I don’t have an opinion,’” Day said.
However, certain ideas may be favored.
For the prosecutions, the team will be looking closely at gun safety.
“You’re going to want people on the jury who are familiar with gun safety issues, right?” Day said. “Who knows about gun safety, and who is going to be skeptical of somebody pointing a gun at someone without knowing what’s in it.”
As for the defense, attorneys will closely look at movie set protocols.
“You’re going to want people who would agree that a film is not like real life,” he said. “That if you’re an actor on a film set and someone hands you a gun and says it’s safe, there’s no reason to think otherwise.”
But each side can only reject a certain number of potential jurors.
“People that [the teams] can kick off or [that] they can say, ‘we’re not going to take that person for this reason,’” Day said. “It’s a process of narrowing down a large pool into a much smaller pool of jurors and alternates.”
Jury selection will begin Tuesday morning at the Santa Fe County Courthouse. Opening statements are expected Wednesday.
An El Dorado County Superior Court judge Friday formally exonerated a deceased Oregon woman who had falsely confessed to a brutal murder in the Sierra Nevada foothills decades ago, bringing closure to her two adult sons who were children when she was imprisoned for a crime she did not commit.
“Oftentimes the public thinks the job of a prosecutor is to do nothing but come in and try to put people away,” said Lisette Suder, an El Dorado County assistant district attorney. “And that’s really not our job at all. Our job is to seek justice.”
She told the judge: “We are asking the court to legally undo a wrong. It was almost 40 years in the making, this wrong.”
Connie Dahl died of a heart attack in March 2014. She was 48.
(Jarred Lange)
Connie Dahl was 19 in 1985 when she and her then-boyfriend, Ricky Davis, returned from night of partying to find the desecrated body of a house guest in the upstairs bedroom.
Police quickly focused on Davis — and Dahl — as suspects rather than witnesses. But they were not charged and went their separate ways.
In 1999, investigators reopened the cold case and relentlessly interrogated Dahl. Though Dahl at first maintained her innocence, the investigators pressured her to adopt a version of the crime they believed was true, in which Dahl helped Davis carry out the killing.
El Dorado County Assistant Dist. Atty. Lisette Suder listens to Ricky Davis make a statement in court Friday.
(Jose Luis Villegas / For The Times)
Davis was convicted in 2005, largely on Dahl’s false testimony, and sentenced to 16 years to life in prison. He was exonerated in 2020 based on DNA tests that proved he was innocent. The DNA also led police to the real killer, who pleaded no contest to the murder in 2022 and is now in prison. The same evidence proved Dahl was not involved in the crime, but she had died in 2014, and no one thought to clear her name.
Times reporters told El Dorado County Dist. Atty. Vern Pierson of the oversight, and that Dahl’s children had never been told that she was no longer considered guilty. Pierson quickly moved to ask the court to vacate her conviction and declare Dahl factually innocent.
On Friday, Pierson gathered with her two sons, Nick and Jarred Lange, at the El Dorado County Courthouse. Davis joined them.
Standing outside the courtroom before the hearing, Jarred and Nick met Davis for the first time. A colorful character wearing a bright pink tie and a leather biker vest who showed up on a red Harley-Davidson — he was, they agreed, just the kind of guy their mother would fall for.
Ricky Davis, left, speaks with El Dorado County Dist. Atty. Vern Pierson in court Friday.
(Jose Luis Villegas / For The Times)
“I am sorry for what happened to you,” Jarred told Davis.
“Look, I was never really mad,” Davis told the brothers. “It was a malleable time in your mom’s life.”
Davis, who has spent years looking over the transcripts of Dahl’s interrogations, trying to understand why she would implicate them both in a crime they had nothing to do with, added, “I believe she was indoctrinated.”
“Yeah, and she started to question herself,” Jarred said.
Later, Davis would tell the judge: “I want to see her vindicated. She was as innocent as I was. She was railroaded in a different way.”
These men arrived almost at once at the courthouse Friday morning, passing through the metal detector one by one, even the district attorney was forced to remove his belt by an officer who did not recognize him. They stood awkwardly greeting one another as they put their belts back on, then walked up the wide staircase to wait outside Judge Larry E. Hayes’ courtroom.
Ricky Davis addresses the court on Friday.
(Jose Luis Villegas / For The Times)
Then they filed in: The Lange brothers, who flew in from Oregon, took seats in the first row; Davis sat behind them. Other lawyers and family members of defendants in court for unrelated matters looked on in surprise.
“My condolences to the family and to the people who have been traumatized by this whole situation,” the judge said. “But I hope you walk out of the courtroom with finally justice being done in the correct way.”
The Lange brothers sat impassively. Nick, a father of 1-year-old twin boys, hesitated when the judge asked if they wanted to speak.
Finally, he stood: “I just wish she could be here for this. She has been gone for over 10 years, and in the 20 years I had with her she wasn’t well for most of the time. So I wish she could just be here and she would have gotten the help she deserved.”
Judge Larry E. Hayes presided over the hearing that exonerated Connie Dahl.
(Jose Luis Villegas / For The Times)
Earlier, Jarred and Nick described how their mother’s arrest wrecked their lives.
They were shuffled from relative to relative with little stability or understanding of why their mother was gone. When she was finally freed in 2006 and allowed to return to Oregon on probation, her record made it almost impossible to find a job or housing. For a time, they were homeless, living in a tent.
After the hearing, the Lange brothers said that they felt a sense of closure. It was not until meeting with a Times reporter in April 2023 they they learned the whole story of what had happened to her, Nick said. Ever since, he added, he has been thinking about how much his mother went through, and how the wrongful conviction affected all of them.
“Who knows what life could have been like, but it could have been better in almost any way,” Jarred said.
Pierson, the district attorney, offered an apology.
“We can’t take back or bring back the time she spent in custody here … and the negative consequences that happened in her life as well as your life as a result of it,” Pierson told the Lange brothers in court. “But we can take responsibility for it and seek to do better in the future.”
Ricky Davis approaches the lectern to speak to the court as Connie Dahl’s children, Nick Lange, left, and Jarred Lange, right, sit with Julie Ehrlich, a victim witness advocate, in the El Dorado County Courthouse.
(Jose Luis Villegas / For The Times)
Pierson also offered a pledge to ensure that something like this won’t happen again. This case has convinced him the methods authorities use to interrogate suspects are outdated and can lead to false confessions and wrongful convictions.
Since exonerating Davis, he has been on a quest to change how detectives are trained, so that California and the country moves to what he describes as evidence-based tactics that pursue truth and facts over confessions. In 2021, he supported legislation that would have banned the kind of interrogations Dahl endured. But that bill was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who cited the high price of retraining detectives across the state.
Pierson, working with the Innocence Project, was successful with a second piece of legislation that banned lying to suspects under the age of 18. That law went into effect this year.
The district attorney has also refused to prosecute any cases in his jurisdiction where confessions were obtained with the technique, and arranges training in science-based methods for investigators across the state.
“My goal has always been to change the way we train officers to do interviews and interrogation,” he said.
The Lange brothers walked out of the dim courthouse Friday morning and into the bright Northern California sun. They were surprised by how pleasant Placerville seemed, the charm of a Gold Rush town on a summer day.
“She used to tell us all the time that we were going to be the only thing each of us had at some point,” said Nick Lange, at right with his brother. “She was right.”
(Isaac Wasserman / For The Times)
Their mom had once walked this stretch of shops and bars on Main Street in search of fun — a carefree young woman who didn’t understand how precarious her freedom was until it was gone.
They wished they could be here under different circumstances, and that she could have, too. The exoneration was important and even healing, but it was not justice.
“It’s nice to have this come to an end,” Jarred said. “It was a long time coming.”
Sabrina L. Johnson, who makes nearly $169,000 a year as the chief judge for the 22nd District Court in Inkster, owes $2,500 in delinquent water bills, according to records obtained by Metro Times.
It’s unclear why Johnson is so far behind on her bills, especially since she makes more than four times the average salary in the Downriver city.
Johnson, who was first appointed to her seat by Gov. Rick Snyder in 2012, is running for reelection this year and has no opponent.
Inkster began shutting off water to delinquent customers in March. But Jerome Bivins, the director of Public Services, would not comment on whether Johnson is at risk of losing her water or if she received favoritism.
In May, the city held a community meeting with U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit, to help residents get on a payment plan to avoid shutoffs.
“It was very successful,” Bivins tells Metro Times.
Bivins says he doesn’t know how many of the more than 8,000 residential customers are delinquent or how many homes lost their water to shutoffs. He also declined to discuss Johnson’s bill.
“I won’t get into that,” Bivins says. “That’s people’s business.”
Johnson was reelected to a six-year term in November 2012 and November 2018.
Johnson served as an assistant Wayne County prosecutor from 1996 to 2002 and 2008 to 2012. She managed her own law firm, Sabrina Johnson PLLC, between 2002 and 2008.
NEW YORK — Harvey Weinstein is expected to appear before a judge Wednesday afternoon in the same New York City courthouse where former President Donald Trump is on trial.
Weinstein is awaiting a retrial on rape charges after his 2020 conviction was tossed out. Wednesday’s court hearing will address various legal issues related to the upcoming trial, which is tentatively scheduled for some time after Labor Day.
Weinstein’s original trial was held in the same courtroom where Trump is on trial now, but the two men are unlikely to bump into each other. Weinstein is in custody and will be brought to and from the courtroom under guard. He will be appearing in a courtroom on a different floor than where Trump is currently on trial.
Weinstein was convicted of rape in the third degree for an attack on Jessica Mann, an aspiring actor, and of sexually assaulting Miriam Haley, a former TV and film production assistant.
But last month New York’s highest court threw out those convictions after determining that the trial judge unfairly allowed testimony against him based on allegations from other women that weren’t part of the case. Weinstein, 72, has maintained that any sexual activity was consensual.
The New York ruling reopened a painful chapter in America’s reckoning with sexual misconduct by powerful figures. The #MeToo era began in 2017 with a flood of allegations against Weinstein.
Last week, prosecutors asked Judge Curtis Farber to remind Weinstein’s lawyers not to discuss or disparage potential witnesses in public ahead of the retrial.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office argued that Weinstein’s lead attorney, Arthur Aidala, made statements meant to intimidate Haley earlier this month.
Speaking outside of court on May 1, Aidala said Haley lied to the jury about her motive in coming forward and that his team planned an aggressive cross-examination on the issue “if she dares to come and show her face here.”
Aidala didn’t respond to an email seeking comment Tuesday about Bragg’s request.
Haley has said she does not want to go through the trauma of testifying again, “but for the sake of keeping going and doing the right thing and because it is what happened, I would consider it.”
Her attorney, Gloria Allred, declined to comment until after she attends Wednesday’s proceedings.
The Associated Press does not generally identify people alleging sexual assault unless they consent to be named, as both Haley and Mann have.
Weinstein, who had been serving a 23-year sentence in New York, was also convicted in Los Angeles in 2022 of another rape and is still sentenced to 16 years in prison in California.
Highland Park activist Robert Davis, who has a history of knocking political candidates off of ballots, is challenging the candidacy of Wayne County Circuit Judge Dana Hathaway.
Davis alleged in a complaint filed Wednesday that Hathaway, who is running for reelection, should be removed from the ballot because her affidavit of identity “contains a false statement.”
On candidates’ affidavits, they are required to identify every county in which they ran for office. On Hathaway’s affidavit, which she submitted on March 5, the judge inexplicably wrote “state” instead of the counties in which she previously ran.
She should have written “Wayne County” and “Oakland County,” Davis points out in his complaint to election officials, including Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson.
“It’s very clear that her affidavit of identity doesn’t comply with the statute because she failed to list the counties that she previously ran in as a candidate,” Davis tells Metro Times.
While the mistake may seem minor, the law clearly states that a candidate is not qualified to appear on the ballot if there are any false statements.
Davis has gotten numerous other candidates removed from the ballot for similar mistakes and false statements.
Asked whether state law allows Hathaway to fix the false statement, Davis says, “There’s not a chance.”
Hathaway is part of a family with strong ties to the judicial system in Michigan. At least six Hathaways are current or retired Wayne County Circuit Court judges.
Her father is Richard Hathaway, a retired Wayne County Circuit judge, one-time Wayne County treasurer, and a chief assistant Wayne County prosecutor. Her mother is Diane Hathaway, a former Michigan Supreme Court justice who was sentenced to a year in federal prison in 2013 after pleading guilty to bank fraud.
Davis isn’t done trying to remove other judges from the 2024 ballot.
“There are going to be other incumbent judges who are going to be adversely impacted as well,” Davis says, adding that he will file complaints against them in the near future.
The deadline for an incumbent to file for candidacy or fix any false statements was the end of March.
“It was mandatory for Hathaway’s affidavit of identity to provide the counties she previously ran in as a candidate,” Davis wrote, citing state law.
Metro Times couldn’t reach Hathaway for comment.
Hathaway was hospitalized on March 20 for unknown reasons. At 1:18 p.m., her husband, who was downtown at the time, called 911 and told the operator his wife was on the upper floor of their home in Grosse Pointe Park.
“I’m very scared,” according to audio of the redacted call obtained by Metro Times.
Hathaway was at Ascension St. John in Detroit for several days.
I got a redacted recording of the 911 call requesting help for Wayne County Circuit Judge Dana Hathaway, who was hospitalized last month. Her husband Judge Nicholas Hathaway made the call from downtown. “I’m very scared,” he said. https://t.co/MNjUX8n976pic.twitter.com/Qc6rctvdxq
Special counsel Jack Smith’s allegations that Donald Trump’s close aides obstructed the Justice Department’s investigation into his alleged mishandling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago are facing their first major test during a hearing Friday.Judge Aileen Cannon, the judge overseeing the criminal case in a Florida federal court, is pressing defense attorneys and prosecutors in the classified documents case over whether obstruction charges against Trump’s co-defendant, Carlos De Oliveira, should be dropped.Even though Cannon won’t be considering any of Trump’s requests for the case’s dismissal Friday, how she responds to his co-defendant’s arguments about the obstruction charges will likely shape how the presumptive Republican nominee in the 2024 presidential election moves forward with his defense.Cannon appeared skeptical of De Oliveira’s argument that an FBI agent asked unclear or irrelevant questions during a voluntary interview, asking his defense attorney John Irving why that argument shouldn’t be made to a jury at trial. De Oliveira has been charged with lying to investigators about moving boxes with classified documents Mar-a-Lago.De Oliveira is arguing that the obstruction-related charges against him should be thrown out because he was not aware of subpoenas issued to Trump for both the classified documents and Mar-a-Lago surveillance footage of the documents being moved.Arguing for the special counsel team, Jay Bratt said prosecutors are not required to show that De Oliveira knew about the subpoenas or what they were demanding. Bratt said that prosecutors only need to show he was aware of the federal investigation.Cannon asked Bratt where in the indictment the special counsel alleges De Oliveira had knowledge of the probe. Bratt responded that they wouldn’t have charged without evidence.As Trump and his allies have argued he is being selectively prosecuted by the Biden administration, Smith and his supporters have argued that former president’s alleged efforts to obstruct the probe into classified documents taken from the Trump White House distinguishes this case from the other times former presidents and vice presidents have been investigated for their handling of sensitive government materials.Walt Nauta, who works as Trump’s personal valet, and De Oliveira, who has worked as property manager at Mar-a-Lago, are accused of conspiring to help Trump hide documents at the Florida estate after he left the White House and lying to the FBI in interviews about their alleged involvement in moving the documents.Trump and his two co-defendants have pleaded not guilty to obstruction, and the former president has pleaded not guilty to crimes related to his alleged mishandling of classified and sensitive government information.What did the aides know?In court filings earlier this year, Nauta and De Oliveira asked Cannon to throw out the obstruction charges that they were facing because, they say, Smith hasn’t met his legal burden to pursue the allegations.Nauta argued that the criminal counts he is facing are too vague. And De Oliveira argued he had “no clue” that classified documents were in the boxes he allegedly helped to move around the club and therefore couldn’t have been intentionally trying to block investigators from attaining important evidence.De Oliveira also has asked the judge to toss the charges against him for allegedly lying to the FBI about moving boxes during a voluntary interview because, he claims, the criminal probe wasn’t hurt by his alleged lies.Smith’s team, however, said that De Oliveira’s arguments about the strength of the government’s case should be left for a jury to decide. As for Nauta’s allegation that the charge is too vague, Smith said that the case has included “extensive allegations” of the “criminal conduct that Nauta is alleged to have undertaken.”In his own interview with the FBI, the transcript of which was released Thursday, Nauta said that the transition out of the White House was “literally chaos” and repeatedly claimed that he believed Trump stored news clippings, hairspray, shampoo, picture frames and other miscellaneous materials in the boxes. Nauta is charged with lying in the interview.Should Cannon reject their efforts, both co-defendants have asked the judge to order a document called a bill of particulars, in which prosecutors provide detailed descriptions of the offenses they plan to prove at trial.Smith’s team has called those requests a “thinly veiled attempt to get the Government to disclose its trial strategy.”
Special counsel Jack Smith’s allegations that Donald Trump’s close aides obstructed the Justice Department’s investigation into his alleged mishandling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago are facing their first major test during a hearing Friday.
Judge Aileen Cannon, the judge overseeing the criminal case in a Florida federal court, is pressing defense attorneys and prosecutors in the classified documents case over whether obstruction charges against Trump’s co-defendant, Carlos De Oliveira, should be dropped.
Even though Cannon won’t be considering any of Trump’s requests for the case’s dismissal Friday, how she responds to his co-defendant’s arguments about the obstruction charges will likely shape how the presumptive Republican nominee in the 2024 presidential election moves forward with his defense.
Cannon appeared skeptical of De Oliveira’s argument that an FBI agent asked unclear or irrelevant questions during a voluntary interview, asking his defense attorney John Irving why that argument shouldn’t be made to a jury at trial. De Oliveira has been charged with lying to investigators about moving boxes with classified documents Mar-a-Lago.
De Oliveira is arguing that the obstruction-related charges against him should be thrown out because he was not aware of subpoenas issued to Trump for both the classified documents and Mar-a-Lago surveillance footage of the documents being moved.
Arguing for the special counsel team, Jay Bratt said prosecutors are not required to show that De Oliveira knew about the subpoenas or what they were demanding. Bratt said that prosecutors only need to show he was aware of the federal investigation.
Cannon asked Bratt where in the indictment the special counsel alleges De Oliveira had knowledge of the probe. Bratt responded that they wouldn’t have charged without evidence.
As Trump and his allies have argued he is being selectively prosecuted by the Biden administration, Smith and his supporters have argued that former president’s alleged efforts to obstruct the probe into classified documents taken from the Trump White House distinguishes this case from the other times former presidents and vice presidents have been investigated for their handling of sensitive government materials.
WaltNauta, who works as Trump’s personal valet, and De Oliveira, who has worked as property manager at Mar-a-Lago, are accused of conspiring to help Trump hide documents at the Florida estate after he left the White House and lying to the FBI in interviews about their alleged involvement in moving the documents.
Trump and his two co-defendants have pleaded not guilty to obstruction, and the former president has pleaded not guilty to crimes related to his alleged mishandling of classified and sensitive government information.
What did the aides know?
In court filings earlier this year, Nauta and De Oliveira asked Cannon to throw out the obstruction charges that they were facing because, they say, Smith hasn’t met his legal burden to pursue the allegations.
Nauta argued that the criminal counts he is facing are too vague. And De Oliveira argued he had “no clue” that classified documents were in the boxes he allegedly helped to move around the club and therefore couldn’t have been intentionally trying to block investigators from attaining important evidence.
De Oliveira also has asked the judge to toss the charges against him for allegedly lying to the FBI about moving boxes during a voluntary interview because, he claims, the criminal probe wasn’t hurt by his alleged lies.
Smith’s team, however, said that De Oliveira’s arguments about the strength of the government’s case should be left for a jury to decide. As for Nauta’s allegation that the charge is too vague, Smith said that the case has included “extensive allegations” of the “criminal conduct that Nauta is alleged to have undertaken.”
In his own interview with the FBI, the transcript of which was released Thursday, Nauta said that the transition out of the White House was “literally chaos” and repeatedly claimed that he believed Trump stored news clippings, hairspray, shampoo, picture frames and other miscellaneous materials in the boxes. Nauta is charged with lying in the interview.
Should Cannon reject their efforts, both co-defendants have asked the judge to order a document called a bill of particulars, in which prosecutors provide detailed descriptions of the offenses they plan to prove at trial.
Smith’s team has called those requests a “thinly veiled attempt to get the Government to disclose its trial strategy.”
Prominent Jewish leaders are free to continue calling Louis Farrakhan — leader of the Black nationalist organization the Nation of Islam — antisemitic, according to a New York court.
The Nation of Islam had sued the Anti-Defamation League and Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center for $4.8 billion, claiming the Jewish organizations had violated the Nation of Islam’s 1st Amendment rights by calling Farrakhan’s frequent unflattering comments about Jews “antisemitic.”
In recent years, Farrakhan has publicly likened Jews to termites, accused the “synagogue of Satan” of wrapping its tentacles around the U.S. government, and argued that the “pedophilia and sexual perversion” in Hollywood could be traced to “Jewish influence.”
In dismissing the case, Manhattan federal court Judge Denise Cote held that the claims of antisemitism were based on direct quotes by Farrakhan and that there was no evidence that being called antisemitic had harmed the Nation of Islam.
“We are grateful that the United States judicial system recognized and validated our First Amendment right to confront and speak out against anti-Semitism,” said the Wiesenthal Center’s Rabbi Abraham Cooper in a statement Monday. He called the lawsuit a “not-so-veiled attempt to silence” Jewish voices.
In a video address posted on the Nation of Islam’s website in the fall, Farrakhan argued that everything he had said about Jews “is absolutely the truth” and that the “vile” claims of antisemitism had cost him and other members of his organization jobs in the media and other business opportunities.
“And with their influence over the media,” Farrakhan added, “these false charges have been spread throughout the Earth.”
Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (NOA) using AI narration.
Donald Trump loves the musical Cats, and like the titular creatures, the former president seems to have nine lives. Today, in the face of yet another near-death financial experience, Trump got his latest reprieve. An appeals-court panel in New York State reduced the bond he must post in a civil fraud case from more than $464 million to just $175 million.
Given that the past few months have seen Trump repeatedly use legal procedures to his advantage, drawing out the cases against him in the hope of eventually escaping them, this decision may look like yet another infuriating case of Trump extracting injustice from the justice system. But in fact it is not such an instance, and the reduction is actually quite appropriate.
Recall the timeline. In mid-February, Justice Arthur Engoron ruled that Trump must pay more than $350 million, plus interest, after he, his sons, and the Trump Organization engaged, according to the judge’s findings, in a years-long pattern of fraud, inflating and deflating the reported value of his assets in order to profit long-term. Trump promptly appealed the ruling, but as a defendant, he must post the value of his judgment while appealing.
The problem for Trump is that $350 million (which interest soon brought to nearly half a billion dollars) is a huge amount, even for him. He claims to have a net worth in the billions, but that number includes a great deal of assets that aren’t really available. Part of it is nebulous brand value, but a lot is in real estate—value that can’t be quickly accessed. Trump claimed in a deposition in the case that he had more than $400 million in cash and growing. That’s questionable and, even if true, wouldn’t leave him enough to cover the bond.
Instead, he sought to obtain a bond from a company that specializes in such products. Bonding companies promise courts to cover the cost of a judgment. In return, they usually demand collateral from a client such as Trump—or maybe particularly from Trump, given his long history of not paying his debts. One of them this month posted a bond in the much smaller judgment against Trump for defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll. But Trump was unable to obtain a bond large enough to cover the fraud judgment, even after approaching 30 companies. His lawyers said it was a “practical impossibility” in a filing. (Trump, ever helpful to his own defense, claimed on social media that he actually has more than $500 million in cash.)
The bond was due today, and Trump got his good news from the court just in time. It is a stay, or pause, not a permanent reduction. For now, the original judgment amount will still be due if Trump doesn’t win on appeal. Today’s outcome is neither a shock nor a travesty.
Offering temporary relief on the bond makes some sense. Imagine that the panel had not reduced the bond amount. Attorney General Letitia James could have started seizing his accounts or his properties, or else he would have been forced to start selling them. But this is a terrible moment to be selling commercial real estate, because the office market has not recovered from COVID. Beyond that, any buyers would know Trump was in a pinch and be happy to profiteer off him.
But then imagine that a few weeks from now, Trump won his appeal, convincing the court that Engoron’s finding was incorrect, or that the calculated amount of the penalty was unfair. Trump would have no way to recover the assets he’d been forced to unload at fire-sale prices. It doesn’t take any affection for Trump to see why a court would want to avoid such an outcome, and why—even if Trump would still be filthy rich—this would be unjust punishment.
The problem for Trump remains winning on appeal. He railed against Engoron in a statement and claimed that the judge was wrong on law, but legal experts told me that they thought Trump would struggle to win his appeal. Engoron’s decision was written in clear detail, as was his calculation of Trump’s penalty, which is based on how much ill-gotten gain Trump extracted from his fraud. “The judge here did a very good job,” Jim Wheaton, a law professor at William & Mary, told me. “Whether you agree or not, the judge very carefully made factual conclusions based on testimony in front of the judge. The judge made credibility decisions based on testimony of witnesses before him.”
Trump’s instinct for stalling the legal cases against him is pernicious. U.S. courts must find a way to balance the need for procedural protection with the principle that justice delayed is justice denied, and so far they have shown themselves ill-equipped; consider that the U.S. Supreme Court won’t even hear arguments about Trump’s immunity from criminal prosecution until a month from today. But forcing Trump to put a FOR SALE BY OWNER sign out in front of Trump Tower today wouldn’t serve justice, and might actually undermine it. As for Trump, he may just be delaying that outcome—but that’s another problem for him to try to wriggle, cat-like, out of on another day.
NEW YORK (AP) — New York prosecutors have urged a judge to start Donald Trump’s hush money criminal trial April 15, saying defense requests for further delays or dismissal of the case because of a last-minute evidence dump are a “red herring.”
Prosecutors said Thursday the majority of evidence the Republican ex-president’s lawyers received recently was “entirely immaterial, duplicative or substantially duplicative” of evidence they’d already been given.
Judge Juan M. Merchan last week postponed the trial’s start from this coming Monday until mid-April after Trump’s lawyers complained the late arrival of evidence from a previous federal investigation was hindering their preparations.
The judge will hold a hearing to address the evidence issue.
